Both rgcp and rgcm seem to be increasingly taken up by dissonant duets,
by which I mean endless petty squabbles between two individuals.
Examples are Wlod-vs-Nick, Villiers-vs-Cruderman, Innes-vs-Brennen, and
Ray Gordon versus anyone who looks at him cross-eyed, to name but a
few. While each of these persons (with the exception of Gordon) may
occasionally, or even frequently, contribute something of worth or
interest, their exchanges with each other generally boil down to
something like:

'I'm right, and you're a liar'.
'No, I'M right, YOU'RE a liar'.
'Oh yeah? Well, you stink'.
'No, I smell good, YOU stink'.
'Oh yeah? Well, you're a @#$%^&*+~'!
'Yeah? Well, you're a }+*&^%$#@'!!

And so on. These exchanges not only accomplish nothing, but persuade no
one of anything, except perhaps of the immaturity of the posters.
Moreover, they are simply boring. Therefore, I wish to suggest a few
guidelines:

1. When you are insulted, it is not necessary to respond. No one should
think less of you if you choose not to dignify a boor by responding -
quite the opposite. It is no more necessary than it is to reply to
every dog that barks.

2. If you do respond to an insult, do not respond in kind. That merely
lowers you to the same level. Stick to the issue. If there is no issue
other than the insult, forget it.

3. Some of these feuds have gone on so long that no one remembers how
they started, no one can tell who is 'right' or 'wrong', and
furthermore nobody cares. Quit beating a dead horse.

4. If you disagree with someone on some point, confine your response to
that point. Do not add insults or personal attacks.

I realize that if everyone followed these rules, we would probably cut
the number of posts on rgcp and rgcm by at least 50%, and the volume
for certain individuals would drop by at least 90%. In my opinion, that
would be a good thing, for both them and us.

Don't be so wet! J. P. Warren.

This are not personality reactions as much as resentments of those who use
this medium to lie and distort; to mention their secret morbid fascinations,
and senses of persecution - other people are volunteered to entire newcomers
as Nazis, etc.

Can you not discriminate between those people who genuinely engage on chess
subjects, and those who wish to exacerbate any sort of drama or excitement,
nomatter what means they use?

You would make the same those people who would write something about chess
subjects with those who project any old **** they can't face in themselves
onto others.

A terrible post!

Phil Innes

"R.P. Warren" wrote in message
oups.com...
Both rgcp and rgcm seem to be increasingly taken up by dissonant duets,
by which I mean endless petty squabbles between two individuals.
Examples are Wlod-vs-Nick, Villiers-vs-Cruderman, Innes-vs-Brennen, and
Ray Gordon versus anyone who looks at him cross-eyed, to name but a
few. While each of these persons (with the exception of Gordon) may
occasionally, or even frequently, contribute something of worth or
interest, their exchanges with each other generally boil down to
something like:

'I'm right, and you're a liar'.
'No, I'M right, YOU'RE a liar'.
'Oh yeah? Well, you stink'.
'No, I smell good, YOU stink'.
'Oh yeah? Well, you're a @#$%^&*+~'!
'Yeah? Well, you're a }+*&^%$#@'!!

And so on. These exchanges not only accomplish nothing, but persuade no
one of anything, except perhaps of the immaturity of the posters.
Moreover, they are simply boring. Therefore, I wish to suggest a few
guidelines:

1. When you are insulted, it is not necessary to respond. No one should
think less of you if you choose not to dignify a boor by responding -
quite the opposite. It is no more necessary than it is to reply to
every dog that barks.

2. If you do respond to an insult, do not respond in kind. That merely
lowers you to the same level. Stick to the issue. If there is no issue
other than the insult, forget it.

3. Some of these feuds have gone on so long that no one remembers how
they started, no one can tell who is 'right' or 'wrong', and
furthermore nobody cares. Quit beating a dead horse.

4. If you disagree with someone on some point, confine your response to
that point. Do not add insults or personal attacks.

I realize that if everyone followed these rules, we would probably cut
the number of posts on rgcp and rgcm by at least 50%, and the volume
for certain individuals would drop by at least 90%. In my opinion, that
would be a good thing, for both them and us.

R.P. Warren wrote:
Both rgcp and rgcm seem to be increasingly taken up by dissonant
duets,
by which I mean endless petty squabbles between two individuals.

When in Rome....

Examples are Wlod-vs-Nick, Villiers-vs-Cruderman, Innes-vs-Brennen,

Actually, His I-ness is crusading against someone named Neil Brennan,
as his posts make clear. What Innes has against a prof at Villanova I
can't say.

and
Ray Gordon versus anyone who looks at him cross-eyed, to name but a
few. While each of these persons (with the exception of Gordon) may
occasionally, or even frequently, contribute something of worth or
interest, their exchanges with each other generally boil down to
something like:

'I'm right, and you're a liar'.
'No, I'M right, YOU'RE a liar'.
'Oh yeah? Well, you stink'.
'No, I smell good, YOU stink'.
'Oh yeah? Well, you're a @#$%^&*+~'!
'Yeah? Well, you're a }+*&^%$#@'!!

And so on. These exchanges not only accomplish nothing, but persuade
no
one of anything, except perhaps of the immaturity of the posters.
Moreover, they are simply boring. Therefore, I wish to suggest a few
guidelines:

1. When you are insulted, it is not necessary to respond. No one
should
think less of you if you choose not to dignify a boor by responding -
quite the opposite. It is no more necessary than it is to reply to
every dog that barks.

Suppose the dog accuses you of criminal activity? Or threatens violence
against you?

2. If you do respond to an insult, do not respond in kind. That
merely
lowers you to the same level. Stick to the issue. If there is no
issue
other than the insult, forget it.

Agreed.

3. Some of these feuds have gone on so long that no one remembers how
they started, no one can tell who is 'right' or 'wrong', and
furthermore nobody cares. Quit beating a dead horse.

But often the horse is not dead. For instance, we are still waiting for
the source of the following alleged "quotation":

"Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the only American writer of
note after
Clemens."

4. If you disagree with someone on some point, confine your response
to
that point. Do not add insults or personal attacks.

I realize that if everyone followed these rules, we would probably
cut
the number of posts on rgcp and rgcm by at least 50%, and the volume
for certain individuals would drop by at least 90%. In my opinion,
that
would be a good thing, for both them and us.

Agreed.

Spam Scone wrote:
R.P. Warren wrote:
Both rgcp and rgcm seem to be increasingly taken up by dissonant
duets,
by which I mean endless petty squabbles between two individuals.

When in Rome....

Examples are Wlod-vs-Nick, Villiers-vs-Cruderman, Innes-vs-Brennen,

Actually, His I-ness is crusading against someone named Neil Brennan,
as his posts make clear. What Innes has against a prof at Villanova I
can't say.

and
Ray Gordon versus anyone who looks at him cross-eyed, to name but a
few. While each of these persons (with the exception of Gordon) may
occasionally, or even frequently, contribute something of worth or
interest, their exchanges with each other generally boil down to
something like:

'I'm right, and you're a liar'.
'No, I'M right, YOU'RE a liar'.
'Oh yeah? Well, you stink'.
'No, I smell good, YOU stink'.
'Oh yeah? Well, you're a @#$%^&*+~'!
'Yeah? Well, you're a }+*&^%$#@'!!

And so on. These exchanges not only accomplish nothing, but
persuade
no
one of anything, except perhaps of the immaturity of the posters.
Moreover, they are simply boring. Therefore, I wish to suggest a
few
guidelines:

1. When you are insulted, it is not necessary to respond. No one
should
think less of you if you choose not to dignify a boor by responding
-
quite the opposite. It is no more necessary than it is to reply to
every dog that barks.

Suppose the dog accuses you of criminal activity? Or threatens
violence
against you?

2. If you do respond to an insult, do not respond in kind. That
merely
lowers you to the same level. Stick to the issue. If there is no
issue
other than the insult, forget it.

Agreed.

3. Some of these feuds have gone on so long that no one remembers
how
they started, no one can tell who is 'right' or 'wrong', and
furthermore nobody cares. Quit beating a dead horse.

But often the horse is not dead. For instance, we are still waiting
for
the source of the following alleged "quotation":

"Good God! He [Henry Miller] is perhaps the only American writer of
note after
Clemens."

4. If you disagree with someone on some point, confine your
response
to
that point. Do not add insults or personal attacks.

I realize that if everyone followed these rules, we would probably
cut
the number of posts on rgcp and rgcm by at least 50%, and the
volume
for certain individuals would drop by at least 90%. In my opinion,
that
would be a good thing, for both them and us.

Pay per view?

Chess One wrote:
Can you not discriminate between those people who genuinely engage on
chess
subjects, and those who wish to exacerbate any sort of drama or
excitement,
nomatter what means they use?

I am taking no side in any of the disputes I mentioned (with the
possible exception of Mr. Gordon).

You would make the same those people who would write something about
chess
subjects with those who project any old **** they can't face in
themselves
onto others.

The essential distinction is not between different kinds of people, but
between different kinds of posts. I make no judgement about the people
involved. I say only that these interminable manure-throwing contests
and 'I know you are but what am I?' exchanges are pointless and a
complete waste of time, for both writers and readers.

A terrible post!

I merely offer my opinion and advice. You are free to respond as you
see fit.

R.P. Warren, in his noble effort to make us rise above our base nature,
told us:

The essential distinction is not between different kinds of people,
but
between different kinds of posts. I make no judgement about the
people
involved. I say only that these interminable manure-throwing contests
and 'I know you are but what am I?' exchanges are pointless and a
complete waste of time, for both writers and readers.

Here are the sort of postings that R. P. Warren thinks are a valuable
use of time:

"Of all the tasteless crap seen on rgcp over the years, this may well
take the cake. Let us hope Mr. Gordon crawls back under his manhole
cover and stays there. "

"This is supposed to impress and/or intimidate me? Or anyone above the
age of 14? If you want to stop being one of this group's main objects
of contempt and ridicule, you will need to mature beyond the stage of
an adolescent windbag full of foul air."

"Wow, a 2000-rated fecal-mouthed windbag. What a Renaissance man!"

"Another cultural landmark. What's next, Sam? 'The Joys of
Coprophilia'?"

"Jerzy, who are you trying to kid? Everyone with any sense in this
group
knows that Sloan is a disgrace, embarrassment, travesty, laughingstock,
buffoon, libeler, rumor-monger, exhibitionist, pest, blowhard, and in
general a rather shabby sort of human being. He is interesting only to
the gullible, and to psychologists studying the delusions-of-grandeur
syndrome."

I'm sure we can all learn from R. P. Warren's example.

Spam Scone wrote:
R.P. Warren, in his noble effort to make us rise above our base
nature,
told us:

Touch=E9. I have not always followed my own advice. That does not mean
it's bad advice, though.

I happen to know that more than a few persons (particularly
non-Americans, given that RGCP has become a de facto USCF
political newsgroup) read only rec.games.chess.misc and *not*
rec.games.chess.politics, unless RGCP threads get cross-posted
to RGCM. (The USCF is *not* the centre of the chess world.)

Given the *general subject* of this thread created by R.P. Warren
in rec.games.chess.politics (one may observe that 'dissonant duets',
as a rule, do *not* stay *only* in *either RGCP or RGCM*), I have
cross-posted it to rec.games.chess.misc.

Spam Scone wrote (to R.P. Warren):
R.P. Warren, in his noble effort to make us rise above
our base nature, told us:

The essential distinction is not between different kinds
of people, but between different kinds of posts. I make
no judgement about the people involved. I say only that
these interminable manure-throwing contests and 'I know
you are but what am I?' exchanges are pointless and a
complete waste of time, for both writers and readers.

Every interested reader here should learn how to use Google
in order to look up the older posts in the Google archives.
If not, then he or she may be nearly helpless in being able
to distinguish between who's lying and who's not lying.

Is R.P. Warren able to read well enough to make *any*
distinction whatsoever between the case of someone, Alpha
(like the many trolls here), who simply accuses someone else,
Beta, of lying or some other abuse *without being able to cite
any evidence at any time of it* (or who simply keeps lying about
Beta) and the case of Beta who *has cited sufficient evidence
to prove that Alpha has been lying about Beta*?

I believe that there's a significant distinction between
the cases of Alpha and Beta (as described above).

As far as I can tell, however, R.P. Warren seems *not* to believe
that this distinction is significant or he seems *not* able to
read well enough to recognise that distinction in the first place.

Here's an excerpt from a recent discussion in rec.games.chess.misc
between Neil Brennen ('Spam Scone') and me in a thread cross-posted
by Phil Innes ('Chess One') from RGCP to RGCM (Mr Brennen and I
were discussing his disputes with Phil Innes, but the principles
of discourse could be extended to other disputes.):

(The accuracy of my quotations--as always--may be confirmed by
anyone who knows how to use Google to look up the original posts.)

Nick (to Neil Brennen):
"In any case, few readers here seem to have the time, the patience,
or the capacity to be able to follow any protracted dispute between
two writers here on any issue. Pathological lying thrives in the
chess newsgroups because too many 'readers' seem too stupid to
recognise those pathological liars."

Neil Brennen (to Nick):
"They (the readers) can only recognise them (the pathological
liars who write in the chess newsgroups) when the evidence is
pointed out."

Nick (to Neil Brennen):
"Yes, I can understand how you feel. For a long time, I have
been citing the evidence of some other writers' lies (my note:
*not only* their lies about me). They often just wait for
readers' memories to fade slightly, run to other threads,
and then reiterate the same lies."

Reiterating the same lies is a very common tactic of trolls.
Put simply, one needs to expend more time and effort in
*carefully citing evidence to prove* that a troll's lying
than for the troll to *snip all that evidence* and resume
lying in another thread or another chess newsgroups.
(I speak from my many experiences of having cited evidence
to prove that some trolls were lying.)

I do *not* believe that it *should* be necessary to reiterate
the same evidence that a troll's lying every time that the
troll may demand it. (Of course, no honest writer would have
that much time.) But there's a practical problem in that
*any proof* that a troll's lying will convince a 'reader' here
*only* to the extent that he or she's capable of *reading and
comprehending* it (many 'readers' here seem nearly illiterate)
and of *remembering* it (most 'readers' here seem to have
quite short memories). It seems only too easy for many trolls
to distort and to lie shamelessly and to confuse many ignorant
and gullible 'readers'. There's also the psychological effect
(which was understood and exploited by Hitler) that whenever
someone keeps lying shamelessly enough in a tone of absolute
conviction, many people tend to be foolishly convinced that
*there must be something factual* to back those lies even
when there's no evidence whatsoever to back them.

In short, pathological lying thrives in the chess newsgroups
because, as in real life, too many people evidently lack the
capacity to recognise the pathological liars for who they are.

There are some writers in the chess newsgroups, such as
Louis Blair, Simon ('chapman billy'), and me (not to mention
some other writers--please don't feel slighted if your name's
not mentioned here) who tend to quote other writers accurately
and to cite evidence carefully to support their assertions
that *some* other writers have been inconsistent or dishonest.
In order to accomplish this, however, their posts (and mine)
often tend to be long and detailed, which demands a greater
'attention span' than apparently possessed by those 'readers'
here who prefer to think in terms of 'sound bites', however
inaccurate, misleading, or simply wrong.

It's unfortunate that R.P. Warren seems *not* to recognise
any significant distinction between the comparatively few
writers who quote accurately and cite evidence carefully
and those many writers (or trolls) who like to practise
name-calling *without ever citing any supporting evidence*.

Some trolls (such as Jerzy Ciruk and Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
recently) have been reiterating the lie that I allegedly
practise name-calling against every writer here who has
disagreed with me. That's quite a transparent lie (though
R.P. Warren may be unable to see through it). When some
writers have written lies, I have cited the evidence of
their lies and then accordingly described them as liars.

Matt Nemmers and I have many strong political differences
(and some occasional misunderstandings), but he seems to
appreciate the fact that I never have deliberately
misrepresented him or written abusively about him.

"Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only
agree on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics
that've been discussed here over the years, yet I've always
been able to communicate in a very civil manner with him
because neither has ever resorted to 'name-calling'."
--Matt Nemmers (writing in RGCP about me)

Here are some other comments about what I have written:

"The general tenor of your (my) posts has been so
heartwarmingly human and winningly intelligent."
--Jerome Bibuld

"Nick's post is typically lucid and balanced."
--Mark Houlsby

"Nick, thank you....I am glad to see posters like you."
--Susan Polgar

"Your (my) posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM,
even though we do differ on some things."
--Simon ('chapman billy')

Here are the sort of postings that R. P. Warren thinks
are a valuable use of time:

"Of all the tasteless crap seen on rgcp over the years, this may well
take the cake. Let us hope Mr. Gordon crawls back under his manhole
cover and stays there."

"This is supposed to impress and/or intimidate me? Or anyone above
the
age of 14? If you want to stop being one of this group's main objects
of contempt and ridicule, you will need to mature beyond the stage of
an adolescent windbag full of foul air."

"Wow, a 2000-rated fecal-mouthed windbag. What a Renaissance man!"

R.P. Warren wrote that (above) to Ray Gordon.

"Another cultural landmark. What's next, Sam?
'The Joys of Coprophilia'?"

R.P. Warren wrote that (above) to Sam Sloan.

"Jerzy, who are you trying to kid? Everyone with any sense in this
group knows that Sloan is a disgrace, embarrassment, travesty,
laughingstock, buffoon, libeler, rumor-monger, exhibitionist, pest,
blowhard, and in general a rather shabby sort of human being.
He is interesting only to the gullible, and to psychologists
studying the delusions-of-grandeur syndrome."

R.P. Warren wrote that (above) to Jerzy Ciruk (who's
one of Sam Sloan's most devoted admirers and supporters).

I'm sure we can all learn from R. P. Warren's example.

Several writers of my acquaintance in the chess newsgroups
have commented that the average level of literacy here seems
extremely low. *If* R.P. Warren really cannot tell that
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's (to use an example that R.P. Warren
mentioned in his post that created this thread) has been writing
many insults and lies about me (and my family members lately),
then I have to say that R.P. Warren needs to improve his
ability to read and to comprehend, not to mention his memory.

For the record, I have written nothing whatsoever about anyone
in Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's family except for himself.
Recently in RGCM (Yes, I can cite the specific threads and
posts if required, but it's disgusting to have to do it.),
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has been writing insults of a
sexual and racist nature against my mother and my father.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski knows nothing factual about my
parents, though he has felt free to project his evidently
racist fantasies onto them as well as onto me.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has claimed (or pretended) to
'respect' Simon ('chapman billy'), who has read the ****
written by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski about me and my family.
I believe that Simon would be ready to corroborate that
I have written truthfully (above) about Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski's insults (which Simon has called 'vulgar').

On many occasions, I have accurately quoted Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski's own words in support of my assertions about
him. As far as I can recall, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
*has been unable to challenge directly* the accuracy of
my quotations of him. Instead, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
often prefers to snip those quotations entirely and
then fling wild accusations at me *without being able
to cite any evidence to support them*.

Any interested reader may like to read the RGCM thread
'Spassky' (around February 2004) for more examples of
abuses committed by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.

Simon ('chapman billy') has read, as far as I know, nearly
every post that I have been writing in the chess newsgroups.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has claimed (or pretended) to 'respect'
Simon, and Holsztynski has done his utmost to convince Simon
(who knows me far better than Holsztynski ever could) that
I somehow am the 'evil' creature of Holsztynski's fantasies.
Simon knows that I have *not* been lying about Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski and that Holsztynski has been lying about me.

In RGCM (4 February 2005), Simon wrote about Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski's post that created a baseless troll thread
in order to attack personally me and my mother (and my
father later) that there's "none (no truth) whatsoever"
in what Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has written about me.

By the way, it seems to me that Simon often prefers to use
diplomatic understatement (a quite English thing to do) when
he writes in public. So perhaps American readers should
take that apparent 'cultural difference' into account.

In RGCM (4 February 2005), Simon wrote in response to
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's attempt to convince him that
Holsztynski's completely right about me:

"Nick has not been using foul and abusive language.
I have not seen any evidence of Nick twisting the
meaning of what has been written. ... Nick is not
the one making vulgar jokes about parentage."
--Simon (writing to Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)

Predictably enough, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski just ignored
what Simon (whom Holsztynski has pretended to 'respect')
wrote, and Holsztynski went on to write even more insults
and lies about me (and my family members) in that thread
and other threads (in both RGCM and RGCP).

No one has ever been able to cite any evidence that
I have lied when writing in the chess newsgroups.
All that has ever been written about that is much 'noise'
by several dishonest trolls who like to cite one another
as saying that they know that I have lied. All that means
is that several dishonest trolls seem to hate me because
I have previously cited the evidence of some of their lies.

Tim Hanke once created a baseless troll thread, which he
named "Nick Bourbaki's many lies". I challenged Tim Hanke
to cite the evidence of even one lie that I allegedly had
written about Tim Hanke, and Tim Hanke was unable to do that.
(Tim Hanke and I seem to have arrived at a de facto ceasefire,
more or less, by now.)

Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') loved to refer to me as
'Nick-the-liar' and to claim falsely that his epithet for me
was universally accepted by readers in the chess newsgroups.
That was quite a transparent lie by Greg Kennedy, a troll
with quite a reputation for misrepresenting and lying about
many other writers in the chess newsgroups. (But would
R.P. Warren have enough sense to see through that lie?)

"I am not aware of Nick writing anything misleading or false."
--Simon (1 February 2005, RGCM "Sam Sloan's Muse")

How much confidence and trust would R.P. Warren place in
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, one of Sam Sloan's most devoted
admirers and supporters in the chess newsgroups?

"That's why Sam (Sloan), since early 1995, is among the
most valuable participants of rgc*, not second to anybody."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (6 February 2005, RGCM)

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (and Jerzy Ciruk) has lauded
the (so-called) 'honesty' and 'decency' of Sam Sloan.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has done what he could to excuse
Sam Sloan's public reference to a woman here as a 'notorious
lesbian', and Holsztynski even denounced that real woman
for allegedly being offensive to Sam Sloan.

I shall agree with Wlodzimierz Holsztynski *on one point*.
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has been arguing vehemently that
my moral character's completely opposite to Sam Sloan's.
*On only that point*, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's right
about me. I acknowledge that my moral character's
completely opposite to Sam Sloan's. It's up to each
reader to decide whether that makes me better or worse.

"You feel tremendous anger when you read those lies.
But I've trained myself to use a steely cold resolve
to fight back rationally and calmly, though it's made
easier by friends. You begin to realise it's a badge
of honour...."
--Edward Said (11 September 1999, quoted in 'The Guardian')

magna est veritas et praevalebit

--Nick

"R.P. Warren" wrote in message
ups.com...

The essential distinction is not between different kinds of people, but
between different kinds of posts. I make no judgement about the people
involved. I say only that these interminable manure-throwing contests
and 'I know you are but what am I?' exchanges are pointless and a
complete waste of time, for both writers and readers.

A terrible post!

I merely offer my opinion and advice. You are free to respond as you
see fit.

The distinction is between people who engage the newsgroup on chess subjects
and those who never make a fair or sustained attempt to do so. I think any
poster who reads here for even a few weeks can figure out who's who.

Sometimes its necessary to correct one's own mistakes, but also to correct
malicious and gross distortions of other's views -- distortions which simply
seek to get a rise out of someone. [[Troll-Haven]]

Dissonance may be unavoidable in some cases, but a prescription to minimise
'noise' is if we each attempt to write about the subject common to
everyone's perspective: chess!

That's my opinion and also my test of my own orientation to the newsgroup,
and of others here.

So! back to it

Cordially, Phil Innes

What duest? What disonant?

From time to time it is imposed upon
me to deal with that Internet
excrement Boobaki, by the
excrement itself.

Regards,

Wlod